Self-regulating banks. Sure they can do it.

david52_gwMay 4, 2012

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In April 2003, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and New York state bank regulators cracked the whip on HSBC Bank USA, ordering it to do a better job of policing itself for suspicious money flows. Staff in the bank's anti-money laundering division, according to a person who worked there at the time, flew into a "panic."

The U.S. unit of London-based HSBC Holdings Plc quickly rallied. It hired a tough federal prosecutor to oversee anti-money laundering efforts. It installed monitoring systems for operations that had grown unwieldy during the bank's U.S. expansion. The aim, as HSBC said in an agreement with regulators at the time, was to "ensure that the bank fully addresses all deficiencies in the bank's anti-money laundering policies and procedures."

Nearly a decade later, the effort has failed to satisfy law-enforcement officials.

The extent of that failure is laid out in confidential documents reviewed by Reuters that originate from investigations of HSBC's U.S. operations by two U.S. Attorneys' offices.

These documents allege that from 2005, the bank violated the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering laws on a massive scale. HSBC did so, they say, by not adequately reviewing hundreds of billions of dollars in transactions for any that might have links to drug trafficking, terrorist financing and other criminal activity.

In some of the documents, prosecutors allege that HSBC intentionally flouted the law. The bank created an operation that was a "systemically flawed sham paper-product designed solely to make it appear that the Bank has complied" with the Bank Secrecy Act and is able to detect money laundering, wrote William J. Ihlenfeld II, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia, in a draft of a 2010 letter addressed to Justice Department officials.

In that letter, Ihlenfeld compared HSBC unfavorably to Riggs Bank. In 2004 and 2005, that scandal-plagued Washington bank was fined a total of $41 million after it was found to have violated anti-money laundering laws, and it was acquired by PNC Financial Services.

"HSBC is to Riggs, as a nuclear waste dump is to a municipal land fill," Ihlenfeld wrote.

The allegations laid out in the Ihlenfeld letter and other documents couldn't be confirmed. It is possible that subsequent inquiries have led investigators to alter their views of what went on inside HSBC's compliance operation.

As they are, the documents reviewed by Reuters, combined with regulatory filings, court documents and interviews with current and former HSBC employees, paint a damning portrait of a bank allegedly unable, and unwilling, to police itself or its clients.

-snip-

In one email exchange submitted as evidence in that case, employees debated whether the bank should help a Miami client get around U.S. sanctions by moving the client's business to HSBC's Hong Kong office. "I believe that the best outcome would be for the customer to open a relationship with Hong Kong just for leters (sic) of credit purposes. He travels there all the time," private banker Antonio Suarez wrote in a 2008 email. Suarez has since left the bank and couldn't be reached for comment.

UNDER THE RADAR

The revelations come as HSBC confronts multiple investigations into its internal policing abilities. The Justice Department, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Manhattan district attorney, the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations are scrutinizing client activities such as cross-border movements of bulk cash, and transactions linked to Iran and other parties under U.S. economic sanctions, the bank said in a February regulatory filing.

"We continue to cooperate with officials in a number of ongoing investigations," HSBC spokesman Robert Sherman said. "The details of those investigations are confidential, and therefore we will not comment on specific allegations." HSBC said in its February filing that it was likely to face criminal or civil charges related to the probes.

A successful case against HSBC could result in an onerous fine and represent one of the most significant money laundering cases ever brought against an international bank. It also would draw unaccustomed attention to the challenges governments -- and financial institutions -- face in monitoring the trillions of dollars flowing through banks' back-office operations, flows essential to the daily functioning of the global financial system.

"Disguised in the trillions of dollars that is transferred between banks each day, banks in the U.S. are used to funnel massive amounts of illicit funds," Jennifer Shasky Calvery, head of the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, said in congressional testimony on organized crime in February.

-snip -

The West Virginia U.S. Attorney's probe of HSBC, which ran from 2008 until at least 2010, originated in a case against a local pain doctor who allegedly used HSBC accounts to launder ill-gotten gains from Medicare fraud. Over time, the U.S. Attorney's office began to discern that, as Ihlenfeld wrote in his letter, the doctor's case was just "the tip of the iceberg" in terms of the volume of suspicious money sluicing through HSBC.

-snip-

The documents reviewed by Reuters for the first time fill in some of the details. Taken together, they depict apparent anti-money laundering lapses of extraordinary breadth. Among them, according to the documents:

* The bank understaffed its anti-money laundering compliance division and hired "gullible, poorly trained, and otherwise incompetent personnel." In 2009, the OCC deemed a senior compliance official at HSBC to be incompetent - the same executive in charge of implementing a new anti-money laundering system.

* HSBC failed to review thousands of internal anti-money laundering alerts and generate legally required suspicious activity reports, or SARs, on transactions picked up by the bank's internal monitoring system. SARs are important because they are sent to U.S. law enforcement and scrutinized for leads to criminal activity. In May 2010, the bank's backlog of alerts was nearly 50,000 and "growing exponentially each month," according to one of the documents.

* Hundreds of billions of dollars moved unchecked each year through various bank operations because of lax due diligence and monitoring of accounts with foreign correspondent banks, which are financial institutions that rely on U.S. banks for processing services. The bank maintained accounts with "high risk" affiliates such as "casas de cambios" - Mexican foreign-exchange dealers - widely suspected of laundering drug-trafficking proceeds, and some Mexican and South American banks.

* In some instances, "management intentionally decided" not to review alerts of suspicious activity. An investigation summary also says, "There appear to be instances where Bank employees are misrepresenting" data sent to senior managers, and where management altered risk ratings on certain clients so that suspect transactions didn't set off alarms.

-snip-

THE MIAMI CONNECTION

HSBC was born in 1865 as the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp in the then-British colony of Hong Kong. It had little presence in the U.S. market until its purchase in the 1980s of Marine Midland Banks Inc based in Buffalo, New York.

Now the fifth-largest bank in the world in terms of market value, HSBC had $2.6 trillion in assets at the end of 2011 and operations in 85 countries and territories. Its North American business, which includes HSBC Bank USA and a consumer finance unit, accounts for about 5 percent of HSBC's profit.

Those excerpts are very damning, and HSBC admits that there will be a price to be paid.

Without banks turning a blind eye towards money laundering, illegal activities would not flourish as they do. I remember hearing estimates of the amount of drug money being laundered in U.S. banks, and the number was staggering - and evidently irresistable regardless of potential criminal investigation and fines.

They haven't done it & some are fragmenting into different companies to get around Dodd Frank.
I read this article at NYU at Stern Buisness Schools site a few weeks back that speaks to this. They were referring to this Bloomberg article on Ban Shape shifting.

"Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) recently separated its U.S. investment bank from its bank holding company, removing it from supervision by the Federal Reserve.
So far, U.S. regulators have reacted passively to such moves by foreign banks to avoid the heightened capital requirements mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act.
That’s because Dodd-Frank failed to heed a fundamental law of architecture: Form must follow function. For financial regulation to be effective, it should focus on economic function, rather than legal form. If it doesn’t, institutions will quickly find new forms that free them of regulatory constraints. What walks like a duck and quacks like a duck must be regulated as a duck, even if it is legally a goose."